Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus wrote: > > Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com> wrote: > > In other words an API that supports both > > feature sets will be a 2) rather than a 1) in any case. > > I was thinking that 1) would be a method directly on the node, as the > Microsoft and Oracle methods are today, while 2) would be a separate > interface, minimal but with an eventual complete interface in mind. > In this case, is the choice between 1) and 2) something like this?: ease of initial use: (1) +1; (2): 0? ease of implementation: (1) ?; (2) ? ease of expansion: (1) -1; (2) +1 Are there any other big issues? I'd be happy to work through my use case and any others suggested using (1) and (2) syntaxes to investigate the ease of use / slope of learning curve, once we have a (2)-style proposal. Francis.Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 03:59:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:25 GMT